Duty to Preserve Digital Evidence: Accountability for Non-Compliance with Court Orders

Introduction

This commentary examines the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Ramu @ Manvendra Singh Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2025). The case arises from a trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 336 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning a homicide and an attempted murder. The accused (applicant) alleged that key witnesses and the deceased were elsewhere when the crime occurred. To substantiate his alibi, he moved to preserve Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile-location data under Section 233 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court ordered preservation but later rejected production when the police claimed the data were over two years old. On Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenge, the High Court scrutinized the conduct of police officers, set aside the rejection order, ordered production of the preserved data, imposed compensation and contempt consequences, and directed departmental inquiry.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the Trial Court’s order rejecting the Section 233 application, finding that the data had in fact been received by then‐SP Mayank Awasthi on 17.09.2018 but were never produced.
The Court ordered the present SP, Datia, to file the CDR and location records within 10 days and directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.
It found that the conduct of then‐SP Awasthi amounted to deliberate suppression of court-directed evidence and warranted departmental action and exemplary compensation of ₹5 lakh to be deposited by him.
It directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh, to initiate departmental proceedings against Awasthi for contempt and interference with the investigation.
The Court granted liberty to the Trial Court to consider contempt action against SHO Bhadoriya and present SHO Gurjar for filing false replies or failing to preserve records.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment refers to:

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (inherent powers to prevent abuse of process).
Section 233 Cr.P.C. (power to summon material or call for a public document during trial).
Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act (admissibility of electronic records; requirement of certificate).
Section 172 Cr.P.C. (diary of proceedings in investigation).
Section 36 Cr.P.C. (powers of superior police officers).
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Abdul Rehman Khandey (2025) SLP(C) No. 5873/2025 – Supreme Court endorsing departmental action and exemplary costs for officers who flout court orders.
Deepak alias Preetam Verma & Anr. v. State of MP & Ors. (2018) – M.P. High Court condemning political interference in investigations and parallel inquiries.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning can be structured as follows:

Duty to Preserve Evidence
Once a court orders preservation of electronic records, police officers have an unqualified duty to secure and produce them. This obligation survives subsequent transfers or passage of time.
Contempt and Accountability
Deliberate suppression of court-directed records constitutes contempt of court. Superior officers cannot shield subordinate default or excuse non-compliance by time-bar arguments (two-year retention rule). The Court must hold errant officers to account.
Departmental and Civil Consequences
In addition to contempt, departmental proceedings are warranted against senior police officers who interfere with investigations or mislead courts. The Court awarded exemplary compensation under its inherent powers to remedy the prejudice caused to a party’s right to a fair trial.
Role of Trial Court
While exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court also admonished the Trial Court for its casual acceptance of police non-compliance without detailed scrutiny or contempt reference. It reinstated the Trial Court’s duty to pursue contempt proceedings expeditiously.

Impact

This Judgment marks a significant development in criminal procedure and evidentiary law:

It underscores the mandatory nature of preservation orders for digital evidence and rejects excuses of statutory retention periods once a court intervenes.
It clarifies that senior police officers bear personal liability—both departmental and civil—for withholding material evidence.
It reinforces the Trial Court’s duty to monitor compliance with its orders and to initiate contempt proceedings without delay.
It paves the way for parties to claim compensation for breach of fair‐trial rights, shaping a new remedy paradigm in criminal trials.
It will deter lax or mala fide conduct by law‐enforcement agencies and strengthen judicial oversight over digital evidence handling.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Call Detail Record (CDR): Telecommunication logs that show which cellular towers a mobile phone connected to at specific times. Used to establish a phone’s location.
Section 233 Cr.P.C.: Empowers the trial court to summon any document or material in public or judicial custody for use in a criminal trial.
Section 65B, Evidence Act: Sets out conditions under which electronic records (like CDRs) are admissible, including the need for a certificate describing the manner of storage and retrieval.
Contempt of Court: Disobedience or willful breach of court orders undermines the administration of justice and may attract civil or criminal contempt proceedings.
Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Grants inherent powers to High Courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramu v. State of M.P. has laid down a robust precedent on the preservation of digital evidence and the personal accountability of police officers for non-compliance. By ordering production of the long-withheld CDRs, imposing a ₹5 lakh compensation, and directing departmental and contempt actions, the Court has sent a clear message: digital evidence is as sacrosanct as traditional material, and no officer—regardless of rank—can flout preservation orders without consequences. This decision strengthens fair-trial guarantees, clarifies procedural obligations, and will guide future criminal prosecutions and investigations involving electronic records.